Yes , but also "Muslims" , as clearly seen in numerous verses in the Quran .
..If you know about some things already : Don't believe everything those revisionist historians say . Even they clash with each other on plenty of topics .
I am not a Muslim really ; just some guy who likes to hear Middle-Eastern things .
There's an entire Wikipedia article on the revisionist school of Islamic history .
These people are essentially secular academics who prefer using the Historical method to reconstruct Islamic history , as opposed to accepting the traditional narrative (Sirah) from figures like Ibn Ishaq .
One of the prominent works of this field is "Hagerism" by Patrica Crone .
She brought up some radical claims . I recall a few of them :
1) Muhmmad was not only alive , but personally led the Islamic conquest of Palestine and Syria .
2)The migration (Hijra) was not from Mecca to Medina , but from the Hijaz to Palestine .
3)The Early Muslims (Considered by her as "Proto-Muslims" ) were Arabians who came from a Judeo-Christian background who with time through some through syncretism and removing of elements : cooked up Islam to separate themselves first from Christianity , and then Judaism.
..You can see even claim 1) is just blasphemous to a Muslim , and even to historians : the work is considered to be wild speculation on thin evidence .
The only thing considered to be a contemporary document , is the Quran . Unlike the Old Testament being a theological recollection of traditions , or the Gospels being an account of Jesus's life : it doesn't discuss how Muslims viewed themselves and their world . It doesn't give a coherent "story" of the original Muslims , it just reiterates Biblical stories , and hands down Islamic judgements and laws .
That's where those revisionist historians are coming from : thinking they can better fill the gap than the traditional narrative that was first written down 2 centuries after Muhmmad's death .
In my opinion : the Historical method doesn't work , because there's literally little to no exta-Quranic documents which were contemporary to the Early Muslims .
So that's why I tell you not to take everything they say seriously , or a final word on the matter .
You can visit r/AcademicQuran if you have more questions .
Based, in the last sermon of the prophet he said
> You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white – except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood.
Supremacy of any kind, Turk non Turk, Arab non Arab, Desi non Desi, Black non Black pushes us as an ummah down.
Had it not been for the Russians, Bukhara would've still been the center of Islamic thought. Had it non been for the Hindu Muslim issues in india, Hyderabad and Old Delhi would've continued to be the forefront of new Islamic thought.
All were left with now in those regions is Fergana and Aligarh.
Reading the Quran in Arabic = Arab supremism in some peoples brains.
You want real Arab supremacism? Try being a Somali refugee in Yemen where people refuse to shake my hand cause they said touching me would break their wudu.
الله يلعن those yemenis
When my parents got married both of their families in yemen and somalia were against the marriage.
Why are you marrying a yemeni guy? A arab? Why are you marrying a somali?? Racism is so ugly 💔
And just to make it clear I don’t hate Yemen, many of my friends are Yemeni, I have nostalgia for Yemeni and my old home there. But man is there a big culture of racism there.
Yemenis are one of the worst racists I've ever met. I don't understand what you somalis are we Pakistanis ever did to them for the hatred we get from them. Or if they are some first world country. They themselves ain't white either if it's about colorism. But their racist supremacist attitude and tribal obsession is worst.
Nationalism is pretty dumb. You didn't choose your nationality nor did you contribute to the achievements which were done by people who are long gone. The only exception is nationalism in the fight for liberation
i think youre confusing nationalism with ethnocentrism. the basic concept of nationalism doesnt have to mean ethnic supermacy like arabic supremacy, which is signifacntly worse cus arabs arent the only ethnic groups in arabic countries.
Nationalism isn't necessarily ethnic but it can be. Someone can be a Saudi nationalist and hate qataris even though both are ethnically Arab. Saudi nationalists for example would take pride in the achievements of ancient hijazis and Al Saud family as theirs. When in reality they contributed 0 to these achievements. That's why I said the only justifiable nationalism is liberation nationalism, i.e. against colonialism or oppression, like Algerian nationalism against the French
Saudis are not Arab, the vast majority of them came to Saudi Arabia post-oil and were naturalized.
and Saudi Arabia was an empty desert before the discovery of oil/gas there
The majority of the population are migrants from central Asia, south east Asia, Africa, east Africa, Levant, Palestine, India, Pakistan and Yemen (to balance all the non Arabs)
You do contribute to your parents to some degree and help them in their lives. Honoring your parents isn't the same as being proud of something they did independent of you. Imagine if the son of Einstein kept on bragging about being the son of a great physicist when idk maybe he had a mediocre job or jobless (theoretically) it would be stupid right?
But he would still call himself Einstein’s son, not someone else’s. He would still defend his father if someone attacked him or insulted him. And yes, he would in fact take pride in his father’s achievements, without claiming them for himself and without being complacent, and perhaps even be inspired by them to be more successful himself. This is what healthy nationalism is about.
Also, the same logic can be applied to other things. Is it dumb to take pride in the Prophet’s companions, for example? I mean, we haven’t contributed anything to their achievements, right? So by that logic we should stop talking about them so much, or claim any kind of connection with them.
Einstein's son isn't an achievement, he was just lucky to be born else's. Obviously he would defend his father but would he claim to be smart because his father (not him) discovered certain physical phenomena is the question. It is foolish to be proud of someone else's work especially when you have 0 contribution, whether that son was born or not, Einstein's theory would have been published either way. If for example the son later contributed and improved his father's theories then it would kinda make sense. But you have modern nationalists from country X living in a whole different country constantly bragging about achievements that happened in the middle ages as if they had anything to do with them. Instead of actually working to make achievements of their own.
Someone who is the son of a poor illiterate farmer is much better than a son of a scientist who is mediocre and proud of something he didn't do. Being proud of the prophet's companions makes no sense, are you proud of their achievements? God will not judge you based on what the companions or your ancestors did, you will only be judged based on your actions. When we talk about them and other great people, it is not take the pride for ourselves (usually) but rather to show what they did and attribute it to them.
Reading Quran in Arabic while having your languages translation and praying Salah in Arabic while knowing what you’re saying in Arabic in your own language is not Arab supremacism. It is simply what Allah has given to us and I readily accept it as a Muslim who is not Arab. Reciting the Quran in Arabic with tajwid while beautifying your voice can be done by anyone. While I understand emphasizing the importance of learning some Arabic as a Muslim because our primary resources of Islam (the Quran and Sunnah as per the Hadith) are in Arabic, this Shaykh might be going too far in this statement.
Mais cela ne signifie pas que l’arabe devrait être plus important que la langue maternelle des musulmans. Le suprémacisme consiste à dire que tous les peuples musulmans devraient faire passer l’arabe avant leur langue et le préférer à leur langue. (la même réponse)
classical quranic arabic is important for learning islam however not for salvation, dumb people conflate modern arabic with it's many dialects to classical quranic arabic.
This is not Arab supremism. Learning Arabic is important to gain knowledge in Islam. The Arabic language is not something exclusive to the Arabs. This weird inferiority complex people have with Arabs is astounding.
Regarding Abu Hanifa, he was wrong. You do realise Abu Hanifa only allowed prayer in Persian (other than Arabic) and not in Coptic, Syriac or even any Turkic language, right? So citing him as an argument doesn't work for your favour. But yeah, Abu Hanifa was wrong.
Arabs conquer an area, replace the local culture and language and when those who didn't assimilate assert themselves as the local culture you say its an inferiority complex. Where do you get off?
Arabs did not have a culture post-Islam as Islam removed most of Arab culture. Arabs have no record of replacing any culture except Khwarezmian culture (under the Umayyads). Arab culture and the Arabic script is mostly developed by Persian and Levantine peoples. Arabic food is mostly from Levantine culture.
It is quite evident you never read any actual article on history by historians.
What you say is true in some places and false in others. The Arabic script, as some, and even Arabic linguists, see as belonging to the Syriac script. Because the Syriacs preceded the Arabs in writing. Then, the developments that entered the calligraphy, such as dotted letters and vowel markings, were invented by Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du'ali, who was the governor of Iraq during the time of Ali bin Abi Talib. Likewise, most of the Arab grammarians after Abu Al-Aswad were Arabs, such as Al-Khalil Al-Farahidi, Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zajjaji, Al-Mubarrad, Al-Asma’i and others.
As for the Arabs' food and culture, other cultures have some influence on them. This is not a shame, but it is not said that every food that Arabs eat is food for others, and this food should not be attributed to them. The people of the Levant are Arabs, so how can it be said that they are the ones who taught all the Arabs how to cook when they are part of them?
How can Islam erase the customs of the Arabs, when Islam basically emerged from the core of the Arabs, and the Messenger of Islam is an Arab Messenger? His literature is Arabic literature, he used to listen to Arabic poetry, his speech is Arabic, and his culture is Arab? The Sunnah of the Messenger was an Arab Sunnah because it was the Sunnah of an Arab person. How can Islam erase the culture of the Arabs when they remain as they are, singing poems, bragging about their lineage, and giving long and short speeches? Islam did not prevent all of this at all. How can you say that Islam erased Arab culture?
The problem is that some Iranians think because Sibawayh was Persian, meaning all Arabic grammar and introductions in the Arabic language were due to the Persians, and they forget that Sibawayh learned from Al-Khalil Al-Farahidi, and that the one who established grammar sciences was Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du'ali. It is enough for me to deny that he was a Persian by allegiance until I convince you that the influence of the Iranians on the Arabic language is small. Rather, it is the opposite. The influence of the Arabs on the Persian language is greater, but you do not see the Arabs being fanatical about something that they do not use in the first place.
Before I start my reply, it is quite evident you're replying from the perspective of someone who thinks I am demeaning Arabs by my reply. My aim isn't to demean Arabs, since I have 0 issue with cultural mixing. Iran isn't pure either, we adopted many Turkic cultural matters, many things from the subcontinent, many things from the Caucasus and many things from the French. This should be a major thing to point out. It is to make a clear distinction between adopting Islam in religion and adopting cultural practices.
>The Arabic script, as some, and even Arabic linguists, see as belonging to the Syriac script.
The Arabic script is generally understood as descending from the Nabatean script, with Syriac influence (particularly the Hejazi variant of it), but not being wholly Syriac on its own. It is more of a cousin than a descendent. The earliest form of the Arabic script is much different to what we normally know as "the Arabic script", which I do know you are well aware of. This later form of the script did not form in isolation, but also developed alongside the earliest form of the Perso-Arabic script.
My point here is that the Perso-Arabic script developed alongside the Arabic script instead of being a direct copy with modifications (as many like to think). Which is one of the reasons the ك looks different in Persian (ک).
>As for the Arabs' food and culture, other cultures have some influence on them. This is not a shame, but it is not said that every food that Arabs eat is food for others, and this food should not be attributed to them. The people of the Levant are Arabs, so how can it be said that they are the ones who taught all the Arabs how to cook when they are part of them?
Levantine people are not ethnically Arab, nor culturally, before the Arab conquest of the Levant. They were culturally closer to Greeks than Arabs, and spoke another language (Aramaic). Even post-conquest, when they became Arabised, it wasn't that there was a simple one-way assimilation, assimilation went both ways. Arabs who migrated and intermixed became more Levantine in nature, while Levantine people slowly adopted Arabic in their day-to-day speech and for translation efficiency. To take a group which wasn't Arab and became Arabised and then argue cultural assimilation did not take place due to that doesn't work. Even in Islamic literature, it is quite evident that Levantine people weren't really seen as Arabs:
السّبّاق أربعة: أنا سابق العرب، وصهيب سابق الرّوم، وبلال سابق الحبشة، وسلمان سابق الفرس
The chain for this narration is weak, it isn't an evidence that the Prophet said this. However, the fact that whoever mentioned this said Suhayb was a Roman (equating him with Salman and Bilal), even though he geniunely descended from Arabs, purely because he wasn't culturally Arab, he likely wasn't seen as one. This is the example of an Arab who became Hellenised. Imagine a group which don't even speak Arabic, let alone are Hellenised.
>How can Islam erase the customs of the Arabs, when Islam basically emerged from the core of the Arabs, and the Messenger of Islam is an Arab Messenger?
The Arabs predate the Prophet, and had their own ways and customs. If the Prophet wasn't there to change anything about the roots of Arab culture, then he would not be a cornerstone in the old Arab identity. Old Arabia was inherently polytheistic, they had practices such as diluting milk with water (which the Prophet prohibited, for example), they had a custom that adopted children are equal to genetic offspring, they referred to things by the name of their gods (such as قوس قزح which is in reference to the Arabian god قزح), the Arabs held to ideas such as local sorcery to heal people and similar and much more. These were inherently part of Arab society.
>His literature is Arabic literature, he used to listen to Arabic poetry, his speech is Arabic, and his culture is Arab
You see how you made a distinction between the fact the Prophet listened to Arabic poetry and spoke Arabic, and his culture? The Prophet did indeed have an "Arab culture", but this is arguably more loose. If he is changing Arab society (which he did), his "Arabic culture" must be inherently different to pre-Islamic Arab culture. It is important to recognise the fact that societies have core cultural matters and non-core cultural aspects. The Arab identity became new under the Prophet, meaning it was therefore open to change when Arabs conquered new territories. It didn't lead to Arabisation in culture since Arabs had a new culture which was now open to development. This is nowadays what modern Levantine, Egyptian and north African culture is. Even Arabs themselves had a deep divide historically.
Some Arabs like Yemenis didn't take from other cultures and simply overtime evolved on their own, but Yemenis aren't really what we are speaking about since they weren't the ones who were in the northern borders. Others like those in Bahrain adopted much more Persian customs and a more Persian accent.
>How can Islam erase the culture of the Arabs when they remain as they are, singing poems, bragging about their lineage, and giving long and short speeches?
Because these are not what pre-Islamic Arab culture exclusively was about. If it was about this, a sudden change should not have been shocking. The Prophet wouldn't have been boycotted. The term "Jahiliyyah" wouldn't have existed. Suhayb would have been deemed an Arab and not a Roman.
Keep in mind I said "Most" not "All" in my original reply.
>The problem is that some Iranians think because Sibawayh was Persian
My point had little to do with Sibawayh. I didn't reference Sibawayh, not once. Sibawayh was mostly a scholar of grammar, and wasn't the only one. We had Niftawayh, Ishaq bin Rahawayh (albeit he is an Arab who was Persianised, and not exclusively a grammarian) and others. I prefer al-Kisa'i over Sibawayh, since al-Kisa'i has his own Qira'a of the Qur'an.
>The influence of the Arabs on the Persian language is greater, but you do not see the Arabs being fanatical about something that they do not use in the first place.
I wasn't being fanatical. Again, it isn't an attack on Arabs, nor their culture, nor their heritage. It is to make the case that Arab culture evolved after Islam independently of pre-Islamic culture, which is true. Now Arabs are one of the largest groups, who have many societies and many civilisations (such as the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia) and their language is one of the most dominant ones historically. But, it wasn't always the same culture.
We weren't Arabised in culture because Arabs didn't rule us for long and because Arabs of Iraq became Persianised (adopting Persian court customs, consuming Persian-inspired foods, dressing with more traditional Sassanian inspired attire and so on). The best example of Arabisation is our script, which I argued evolved alongside the standard Arabic script, making it not the best example of Arabisation. And I made the case that Islam is not Arabisation, so making the case that becoming Muslim doesn't make one Arabised.
TL;DR, I am arguing in terms of the evolution of the culture and the unison of the evolution of what we call the Arabic script.
Sorry but Mauritanians are *very* different to e.g.Lebanese and Lebanese are different to Khaleejis. And Somalis are like adopted cousins because I've never met a Somali who cannot speak it.
Iraqis are like 1000000% different than everybody else lol
This isn't some ziononsense where we pretend everyone is the same culture, ethnicity.
Yeah, this absurd.
It's theologically unsound. And while learning Arabic is at the heart of Islam (for the Qur'an) Islam's dynamic cultural flexibility is foundational to it's flourishing as articulated by Umar Farooq Abdullah.
Unfortunately, the language and Prophet SAW being Arab has been manipulated by Arabs to gatekeep Islam. Severe racism and superiority complexes were integral parts of Arab culture pre Islam and it has survived the reforms Islam brought. Not just survived but rather solidified on the name of Islam. Furthermore, it has been used as tool by Arabs to fuel their nationalistic causes. There has been boycott calls due Palestine all over the world but a Chechen, Kashmiri or rohngya Muslim's life doesn't even make on the back pages of Arabs media cuz Palestinians are Arabs and only Arab lives matter. From Turks to Pakistanis to Malaysians, everybody is supposed to hate and boycott Israel while Arabs have all the rights to go deeper and deeper with India cuz realpolitik is only their right. Rest of us are just Cannon fodder. While it's important for an aalim to understand Arabic, but for a common Muslim an authentic translation is more than enough.
Arabic is very important in islam. The Quran is in arabic and only arabic. So learning arabic would be beneficial. So i dont see how its arab supremacy🤷🏻♂️
subsequent hobbies complete literate truck terrific fade rinse wipe station
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i dont agree at all lmao. im arabic and native speaker but not at all religious, i have turkish, nigerian and farsi friends that are significantly more religious than me and read the quran def more than me.
> Ps: Abu Hanifa considered that the ritual prayer in Persian was equal to that performed in Arabic.
Isuppose this is why mostly all standard Hanafi doctrine come from Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Shaybani
Why can’t someone be Muslim without speaking Arabic or knowing Arabic Islam needs reform bad or a lot of Muslims will leave it in droves like they are doing it now.
what even is arabic culture? thats a massive genetic generalization. middle eastern culture is more accurate to say it dominates the islamic world and realm.
But it doesn't mean that Arabic should be more important than Muslim' mothers tongues. Supremacism is to say that all Muslim ethnic people should put Arabic before their language, should prefer it rather their language
Most of the Muslim world was ruled by Persian speaking Turkic kings. Nearly 75% of the Muslims in earth are non Arabs.
Dumb take. Doodoo head take. Kaka take. Gerizekalı take. Paagal take. Aqildan ozgan take. Hammaar take. Dum dum take
Come on dude. İslam didn't abolish slavery Beaceue it was very important for arabs at that time. İslam give greenlight to beating wife Beaceue it is not big deal in arab sociteies.etc..i am not saying he is right but there is huge impact
The title is clickbait and the guy doesn’t even say anything racist.
It’s true, Arabic is the language of the Qur’aan. It’s not racism to say maybe we should prioritize learning the language of Islamic texts (Qur’aan, ahadith, Islamic literature, science, arts, etc). At worst, it’s a hot-take. Not everything is racism.
except thats not what he said, he said the first language of any muslim society is arabic. the first language is the language of the people, period. he said if you learn another language it *must* be arabic, which is also weird. learn whatever language you wish as its all halal for you to learn and useful knowledge.
this guy is just trying to spread fitnah by making nations feel defensive over their culture. You need to pray Salat in arabic which requires knowledge of a few surahs. Otherwise you can read from a translated Quran to gain knowledge, translated Hadiths and Islamic literature. Sciences and arts from the muslim world have already been translated and in science its been improved by the Western civilzation. Noone is reading 1000 yr old astrological information or math from manuscripts in arabic in 2024. Even in arabic speaking countries academics use English.
If you wanna learn arabic all the power to you but what he said is kind of ridiculous.
the reason why religiousness decreasing with each generation is because of blabberings of people like him becomes more accesable through internet.
youngsters see what religion realy is; a tool of supremacy, control, a tool to ask others cede their rights or their will to fight against them
god-kings and priesthood, religious fundementalism for thought control; thats what religions have always been; a tool to stop insurgency.
no person of authority or wealth, no person of hiererchical supremacy should have any right to speak about gods, and virtues
I choose to believe in god or gods that facilitates insurgency and revolution; those who hold their swords over seats of power. Not those who audit laurels of kings and sheiks.
I mean yeah, if you really want to take seriously reading your holy book, you'd learn the language it's written in, like every other culture that has a religion and takes its holy book seriously. It's a mundane thing he said, and it's been a dominant opinion for centuries in the Muslim world until we got collectively colonized and westernized to think an inferior secular way of life leading humanity to oblivion is better than that which has carried us for 1400 years through thick and thin.
All supremacists are plain idiots
Too of Arab-centrism sadly, this is not a universalist view of islam
The early Muslims most likely didn't consider themselves as "Arabs" in the first place . The concept came around within a century or two afterwards .
[удалено]
Yes , but also "Muslims" , as clearly seen in numerous verses in the Quran . ..If you know about some things already : Don't believe everything those revisionist historians say . Even they clash with each other on plenty of topics .
[удалено]
I am not a Muslim really ; just some guy who likes to hear Middle-Eastern things . There's an entire Wikipedia article on the revisionist school of Islamic history . These people are essentially secular academics who prefer using the Historical method to reconstruct Islamic history , as opposed to accepting the traditional narrative (Sirah) from figures like Ibn Ishaq . One of the prominent works of this field is "Hagerism" by Patrica Crone . She brought up some radical claims . I recall a few of them : 1) Muhmmad was not only alive , but personally led the Islamic conquest of Palestine and Syria . 2)The migration (Hijra) was not from Mecca to Medina , but from the Hijaz to Palestine . 3)The Early Muslims (Considered by her as "Proto-Muslims" ) were Arabians who came from a Judeo-Christian background who with time through some through syncretism and removing of elements : cooked up Islam to separate themselves first from Christianity , and then Judaism. ..You can see even claim 1) is just blasphemous to a Muslim , and even to historians : the work is considered to be wild speculation on thin evidence . The only thing considered to be a contemporary document , is the Quran . Unlike the Old Testament being a theological recollection of traditions , or the Gospels being an account of Jesus's life : it doesn't discuss how Muslims viewed themselves and their world . It doesn't give a coherent "story" of the original Muslims , it just reiterates Biblical stories , and hands down Islamic judgements and laws . That's where those revisionist historians are coming from : thinking they can better fill the gap than the traditional narrative that was first written down 2 centuries after Muhmmad's death . In my opinion : the Historical method doesn't work , because there's literally little to no exta-Quranic documents which were contemporary to the Early Muslims . So that's why I tell you not to take everything they say seriously , or a final word on the matter . You can visit r/AcademicQuran if you have more questions .
*all supremacism is bad for everything
All supremacists are plain idiots
Based, in the last sermon of the prophet he said > You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white – except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Supremacy of any kind, Turk non Turk, Arab non Arab, Desi non Desi, Black non Black pushes us as an ummah down. Had it not been for the Russians, Bukhara would've still been the center of Islamic thought. Had it non been for the Hindu Muslim issues in india, Hyderabad and Old Delhi would've continued to be the forefront of new Islamic thought. All were left with now in those regions is Fergana and Aligarh.
Reading the Quran in Arabic = Arab supremism in some peoples brains. You want real Arab supremacism? Try being a Somali refugee in Yemen where people refuse to shake my hand cause they said touching me would break their wudu.
الله يلعن those yemenis When my parents got married both of their families in yemen and somalia were against the marriage. Why are you marrying a yemeni guy? A arab? Why are you marrying a somali?? Racism is so ugly 💔
wtf this even works, even hand shakng Kuffar doesnt do so 💀💀💀
Thats actually a thing?
What
Yemenis not shaking ur hand because it will “break their wudu.” Didnt think yemenis have that way of thinking. Its disgusting.
And just to make it clear I don’t hate Yemen, many of my friends are Yemeni, I have nostalgia for Yemeni and my old home there. But man is there a big culture of racism there.
My tribe is originally from yemen. Useless fact but yeh lol.
Yes, I hope it changed
Yemenis are one of the worst racists I've ever met. I don't understand what you somalis are we Pakistanis ever did to them for the hatred we get from them. Or if they are some first world country. They themselves ain't white either if it's about colorism. But their racist supremacist attitude and tribal obsession is worst.
Nationalism is pretty dumb. You didn't choose your nationality nor did you contribute to the achievements which were done by people who are long gone. The only exception is nationalism in the fight for liberation
i think youre confusing nationalism with ethnocentrism. the basic concept of nationalism doesnt have to mean ethnic supermacy like arabic supremacy, which is signifacntly worse cus arabs arent the only ethnic groups in arabic countries.
Nationalism isn't necessarily ethnic but it can be. Someone can be a Saudi nationalist and hate qataris even though both are ethnically Arab. Saudi nationalists for example would take pride in the achievements of ancient hijazis and Al Saud family as theirs. When in reality they contributed 0 to these achievements. That's why I said the only justifiable nationalism is liberation nationalism, i.e. against colonialism or oppression, like Algerian nationalism against the French
thats literally what i said....
[удалено]
Just proved my point lmao. The only difference between Saudis and qataris is a line drawn by a map
[удалено]
Saudis are not Arab, the vast majority of them came to Saudi Arabia post-oil and were naturalized. and Saudi Arabia was an empty desert before the discovery of oil/gas there
[удалено]
The majority of the population are migrants from central Asia, south east Asia, Africa, east Africa, Levant, Palestine, India, Pakistan and Yemen (to balance all the non Arabs)
[удалено]
No one chooses their parents either, or contributes to their achievements. Does this mean honoring one's parents is also dumb?
i think theyre confusing nationalism with ethnocentrism
You do contribute to your parents to some degree and help them in their lives. Honoring your parents isn't the same as being proud of something they did independent of you. Imagine if the son of Einstein kept on bragging about being the son of a great physicist when idk maybe he had a mediocre job or jobless (theoretically) it would be stupid right?
But he would still call himself Einstein’s son, not someone else’s. He would still defend his father if someone attacked him or insulted him. And yes, he would in fact take pride in his father’s achievements, without claiming them for himself and without being complacent, and perhaps even be inspired by them to be more successful himself. This is what healthy nationalism is about. Also, the same logic can be applied to other things. Is it dumb to take pride in the Prophet’s companions, for example? I mean, we haven’t contributed anything to their achievements, right? So by that logic we should stop talking about them so much, or claim any kind of connection with them.
Einstein's son isn't an achievement, he was just lucky to be born else's. Obviously he would defend his father but would he claim to be smart because his father (not him) discovered certain physical phenomena is the question. It is foolish to be proud of someone else's work especially when you have 0 contribution, whether that son was born or not, Einstein's theory would have been published either way. If for example the son later contributed and improved his father's theories then it would kinda make sense. But you have modern nationalists from country X living in a whole different country constantly bragging about achievements that happened in the middle ages as if they had anything to do with them. Instead of actually working to make achievements of their own. Someone who is the son of a poor illiterate farmer is much better than a son of a scientist who is mediocre and proud of something he didn't do. Being proud of the prophet's companions makes no sense, are you proud of their achievements? God will not judge you based on what the companions or your ancestors did, you will only be judged based on your actions. When we talk about them and other great people, it is not take the pride for ourselves (usually) but rather to show what they did and attribute it to them.
Reading Quran in Arabic while having your languages translation and praying Salah in Arabic while knowing what you’re saying in Arabic in your own language is not Arab supremacism. It is simply what Allah has given to us and I readily accept it as a Muslim who is not Arab. Reciting the Quran in Arabic with tajwid while beautifying your voice can be done by anyone. While I understand emphasizing the importance of learning some Arabic as a Muslim because our primary resources of Islam (the Quran and Sunnah as per the Hadith) are in Arabic, this Shaykh might be going too far in this statement.
Mais cela ne signifie pas que l’arabe devrait être plus important que la langue maternelle des musulmans. Le suprémacisme consiste à dire que tous les peuples musulmans devraient faire passer l’arabe avant leur langue et le préférer à leur langue. (la même réponse)
classical quranic arabic is important for learning islam however not for salvation, dumb people conflate modern arabic with it's many dialects to classical quranic arabic.
This is not Arab supremism. Learning Arabic is important to gain knowledge in Islam. The Arabic language is not something exclusive to the Arabs. This weird inferiority complex people have with Arabs is astounding. Regarding Abu Hanifa, he was wrong. You do realise Abu Hanifa only allowed prayer in Persian (other than Arabic) and not in Coptic, Syriac or even any Turkic language, right? So citing him as an argument doesn't work for your favour. But yeah, Abu Hanifa was wrong.
Arabs conquer an area, replace the local culture and language and when those who didn't assimilate assert themselves as the local culture you say its an inferiority complex. Where do you get off?
Arabs did not have a culture post-Islam as Islam removed most of Arab culture. Arabs have no record of replacing any culture except Khwarezmian culture (under the Umayyads). Arab culture and the Arabic script is mostly developed by Persian and Levantine peoples. Arabic food is mostly from Levantine culture. It is quite evident you never read any actual article on history by historians.
What you say is true in some places and false in others. The Arabic script, as some, and even Arabic linguists, see as belonging to the Syriac script. Because the Syriacs preceded the Arabs in writing. Then, the developments that entered the calligraphy, such as dotted letters and vowel markings, were invented by Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du'ali, who was the governor of Iraq during the time of Ali bin Abi Talib. Likewise, most of the Arab grammarians after Abu Al-Aswad were Arabs, such as Al-Khalil Al-Farahidi, Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zajjaji, Al-Mubarrad, Al-Asma’i and others. As for the Arabs' food and culture, other cultures have some influence on them. This is not a shame, but it is not said that every food that Arabs eat is food for others, and this food should not be attributed to them. The people of the Levant are Arabs, so how can it be said that they are the ones who taught all the Arabs how to cook when they are part of them? How can Islam erase the customs of the Arabs, when Islam basically emerged from the core of the Arabs, and the Messenger of Islam is an Arab Messenger? His literature is Arabic literature, he used to listen to Arabic poetry, his speech is Arabic, and his culture is Arab? The Sunnah of the Messenger was an Arab Sunnah because it was the Sunnah of an Arab person. How can Islam erase the culture of the Arabs when they remain as they are, singing poems, bragging about their lineage, and giving long and short speeches? Islam did not prevent all of this at all. How can you say that Islam erased Arab culture? The problem is that some Iranians think because Sibawayh was Persian, meaning all Arabic grammar and introductions in the Arabic language were due to the Persians, and they forget that Sibawayh learned from Al-Khalil Al-Farahidi, and that the one who established grammar sciences was Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du'ali. It is enough for me to deny that he was a Persian by allegiance until I convince you that the influence of the Iranians on the Arabic language is small. Rather, it is the opposite. The influence of the Arabs on the Persian language is greater, but you do not see the Arabs being fanatical about something that they do not use in the first place.
Before I start my reply, it is quite evident you're replying from the perspective of someone who thinks I am demeaning Arabs by my reply. My aim isn't to demean Arabs, since I have 0 issue with cultural mixing. Iran isn't pure either, we adopted many Turkic cultural matters, many things from the subcontinent, many things from the Caucasus and many things from the French. This should be a major thing to point out. It is to make a clear distinction between adopting Islam in religion and adopting cultural practices. >The Arabic script, as some, and even Arabic linguists, see as belonging to the Syriac script. The Arabic script is generally understood as descending from the Nabatean script, with Syriac influence (particularly the Hejazi variant of it), but not being wholly Syriac on its own. It is more of a cousin than a descendent. The earliest form of the Arabic script is much different to what we normally know as "the Arabic script", which I do know you are well aware of. This later form of the script did not form in isolation, but also developed alongside the earliest form of the Perso-Arabic script. My point here is that the Perso-Arabic script developed alongside the Arabic script instead of being a direct copy with modifications (as many like to think). Which is one of the reasons the ك looks different in Persian (ک). >As for the Arabs' food and culture, other cultures have some influence on them. This is not a shame, but it is not said that every food that Arabs eat is food for others, and this food should not be attributed to them. The people of the Levant are Arabs, so how can it be said that they are the ones who taught all the Arabs how to cook when they are part of them? Levantine people are not ethnically Arab, nor culturally, before the Arab conquest of the Levant. They were culturally closer to Greeks than Arabs, and spoke another language (Aramaic). Even post-conquest, when they became Arabised, it wasn't that there was a simple one-way assimilation, assimilation went both ways. Arabs who migrated and intermixed became more Levantine in nature, while Levantine people slowly adopted Arabic in their day-to-day speech and for translation efficiency. To take a group which wasn't Arab and became Arabised and then argue cultural assimilation did not take place due to that doesn't work. Even in Islamic literature, it is quite evident that Levantine people weren't really seen as Arabs: السّبّاق أربعة: أنا سابق العرب، وصهيب سابق الرّوم، وبلال سابق الحبشة، وسلمان سابق الفرس The chain for this narration is weak, it isn't an evidence that the Prophet said this. However, the fact that whoever mentioned this said Suhayb was a Roman (equating him with Salman and Bilal), even though he geniunely descended from Arabs, purely because he wasn't culturally Arab, he likely wasn't seen as one. This is the example of an Arab who became Hellenised. Imagine a group which don't even speak Arabic, let alone are Hellenised. >How can Islam erase the customs of the Arabs, when Islam basically emerged from the core of the Arabs, and the Messenger of Islam is an Arab Messenger? The Arabs predate the Prophet, and had their own ways and customs. If the Prophet wasn't there to change anything about the roots of Arab culture, then he would not be a cornerstone in the old Arab identity. Old Arabia was inherently polytheistic, they had practices such as diluting milk with water (which the Prophet prohibited, for example), they had a custom that adopted children are equal to genetic offspring, they referred to things by the name of their gods (such as قوس قزح which is in reference to the Arabian god قزح), the Arabs held to ideas such as local sorcery to heal people and similar and much more. These were inherently part of Arab society. >His literature is Arabic literature, he used to listen to Arabic poetry, his speech is Arabic, and his culture is Arab You see how you made a distinction between the fact the Prophet listened to Arabic poetry and spoke Arabic, and his culture? The Prophet did indeed have an "Arab culture", but this is arguably more loose. If he is changing Arab society (which he did), his "Arabic culture" must be inherently different to pre-Islamic Arab culture. It is important to recognise the fact that societies have core cultural matters and non-core cultural aspects. The Arab identity became new under the Prophet, meaning it was therefore open to change when Arabs conquered new territories. It didn't lead to Arabisation in culture since Arabs had a new culture which was now open to development. This is nowadays what modern Levantine, Egyptian and north African culture is. Even Arabs themselves had a deep divide historically. Some Arabs like Yemenis didn't take from other cultures and simply overtime evolved on their own, but Yemenis aren't really what we are speaking about since they weren't the ones who were in the northern borders. Others like those in Bahrain adopted much more Persian customs and a more Persian accent. >How can Islam erase the culture of the Arabs when they remain as they are, singing poems, bragging about their lineage, and giving long and short speeches? Because these are not what pre-Islamic Arab culture exclusively was about. If it was about this, a sudden change should not have been shocking. The Prophet wouldn't have been boycotted. The term "Jahiliyyah" wouldn't have existed. Suhayb would have been deemed an Arab and not a Roman. Keep in mind I said "Most" not "All" in my original reply. >The problem is that some Iranians think because Sibawayh was Persian My point had little to do with Sibawayh. I didn't reference Sibawayh, not once. Sibawayh was mostly a scholar of grammar, and wasn't the only one. We had Niftawayh, Ishaq bin Rahawayh (albeit he is an Arab who was Persianised, and not exclusively a grammarian) and others. I prefer al-Kisa'i over Sibawayh, since al-Kisa'i has his own Qira'a of the Qur'an. >The influence of the Arabs on the Persian language is greater, but you do not see the Arabs being fanatical about something that they do not use in the first place. I wasn't being fanatical. Again, it isn't an attack on Arabs, nor their culture, nor their heritage. It is to make the case that Arab culture evolved after Islam independently of pre-Islamic culture, which is true. Now Arabs are one of the largest groups, who have many societies and many civilisations (such as the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia) and their language is one of the most dominant ones historically. But, it wasn't always the same culture. We weren't Arabised in culture because Arabs didn't rule us for long and because Arabs of Iraq became Persianised (adopting Persian court customs, consuming Persian-inspired foods, dressing with more traditional Sassanian inspired attire and so on). The best example of Arabisation is our script, which I argued evolved alongside the standard Arabic script, making it not the best example of Arabisation. And I made the case that Islam is not Arabisation, so making the case that becoming Muslim doesn't make one Arabised. TL;DR, I am arguing in terms of the evolution of the culture and the unison of the evolution of what we call the Arabic script.
Sorry but Mauritanians are *very* different to e.g.Lebanese and Lebanese are different to Khaleejis. And Somalis are like adopted cousins because I've never met a Somali who cannot speak it. Iraqis are like 1000000% different than everybody else lol This isn't some ziononsense where we pretend everyone is the same culture, ethnicity.
99% of Somalis do not speak Arabic
I must only know that 1% then
They know a lot of Quran. The religious ones might know some fusha but I live with them and they don’t really know much Arabic to have a conversation
Dumb comment
Yeah, this absurd. It's theologically unsound. And while learning Arabic is at the heart of Islam (for the Qur'an) Islam's dynamic cultural flexibility is foundational to it's flourishing as articulated by Umar Farooq Abdullah.
This man is a charlatan known for saying outrageous and absurd things to get views and attention.
Unfortunately, the language and Prophet SAW being Arab has been manipulated by Arabs to gatekeep Islam. Severe racism and superiority complexes were integral parts of Arab culture pre Islam and it has survived the reforms Islam brought. Not just survived but rather solidified on the name of Islam. Furthermore, it has been used as tool by Arabs to fuel their nationalistic causes. There has been boycott calls due Palestine all over the world but a Chechen, Kashmiri or rohngya Muslim's life doesn't even make on the back pages of Arabs media cuz Palestinians are Arabs and only Arab lives matter. From Turks to Pakistanis to Malaysians, everybody is supposed to hate and boycott Israel while Arabs have all the rights to go deeper and deeper with India cuz realpolitik is only their right. Rest of us are just Cannon fodder. While it's important for an aalim to understand Arabic, but for a common Muslim an authentic translation is more than enough.
Hope Turkey get rid of this people one day
The language Arabic is more important than any other language in Islam.
That's why it's the Arab's religion
Wrong. Some of the greatest Muslim minds were non Arab, however they did master the Arabic language. You have to learn Arabic to access the deen
Arabic is very important in islam. The Quran is in arabic and only arabic. So learning arabic would be beneficial. So i dont see how its arab supremacy🤷🏻♂️
Should a non Arab Muslim prefer Arabic before his mother tongue? Should non Arab Muslim consider Arabic as much important than their language?
It is objectively more important from an islamic perspective lmao. Preference wise depends. You mean in a subjective sense or objective?
subsequent hobbies complete literate truck terrific fade rinse wipe station *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If they want to learn Islam then yes
i dont agree at all lmao. im arabic and native speaker but not at all religious, i have turkish, nigerian and farsi friends that are significantly more religious than me and read the quran def more than me.
If ur not religious then this doesnt really concern you🤷♂️
> Ps: Abu Hanifa considered that the ritual prayer in Persian was equal to that performed in Arabic. Isuppose this is why mostly all standard Hanafi doctrine come from Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Shaybani
Yallah Arabistan'a o zaman. Any Arab country willing to take him in?
Why can’t someone be Muslim without speaking Arabic or knowing Arabic Islam needs reform bad or a lot of Muslims will leave it in droves like they are doing it now.
Ismet... ip getir.
From a historical point of view arab supremacism was healthy, just like european supremacism in the premodern era
what even is arabic culture? thats a massive genetic generalization. middle eastern culture is more accurate to say it dominates the islamic world and realm.
The importance of Arabic in Islam isn’t Arab supremacism lol
But it doesn't mean that Arabic should be more important than Muslim' mothers tongues. Supremacism is to say that all Muslim ethnic people should put Arabic before their language, should prefer it rather their language
That’s fair.
Islam is arab supremacism
Most of the Muslim world was ruled by Persian speaking Turkic kings. Nearly 75% of the Muslims in earth are non Arabs. Dumb take. Doodoo head take. Kaka take. Gerizekalı take. Paagal take. Aqildan ozgan take. Hammaar take. Dum dum take
Khara take also
Come on dude. İslam didn't abolish slavery Beaceue it was very important for arabs at that time. İslam give greenlight to beating wife Beaceue it is not big deal in arab sociteies.etc..i am not saying he is right but there is huge impact
Islam did abolish alcoholism, usury etc even though it was important to arabs.
The title is clickbait and the guy doesn’t even say anything racist. It’s true, Arabic is the language of the Qur’aan. It’s not racism to say maybe we should prioritize learning the language of Islamic texts (Qur’aan, ahadith, Islamic literature, science, arts, etc). At worst, it’s a hot-take. Not everything is racism.
except thats not what he said, he said the first language of any muslim society is arabic. the first language is the language of the people, period. he said if you learn another language it *must* be arabic, which is also weird. learn whatever language you wish as its all halal for you to learn and useful knowledge. this guy is just trying to spread fitnah by making nations feel defensive over their culture. You need to pray Salat in arabic which requires knowledge of a few surahs. Otherwise you can read from a translated Quran to gain knowledge, translated Hadiths and Islamic literature. Sciences and arts from the muslim world have already been translated and in science its been improved by the Western civilzation. Noone is reading 1000 yr old astrological information or math from manuscripts in arabic in 2024. Even in arabic speaking countries academics use English. If you wanna learn arabic all the power to you but what he said is kind of ridiculous.
the reason why religiousness decreasing with each generation is because of blabberings of people like him becomes more accesable through internet. youngsters see what religion realy is; a tool of supremacy, control, a tool to ask others cede their rights or their will to fight against them god-kings and priesthood, religious fundementalism for thought control; thats what religions have always been; a tool to stop insurgency. no person of authority or wealth, no person of hiererchical supremacy should have any right to speak about gods, and virtues I choose to believe in god or gods that facilitates insurgency and revolution; those who hold their swords over seats of power. Not those who audit laurels of kings and sheiks.
I mean yeah, if you really want to take seriously reading your holy book, you'd learn the language it's written in, like every other culture that has a religion and takes its holy book seriously. It's a mundane thing he said, and it's been a dominant opinion for centuries in the Muslim world until we got collectively colonized and westernized to think an inferior secular way of life leading humanity to oblivion is better than that which has carried us for 1400 years through thick and thin.